THE PERSISTENCE OF RACIAL

THE PERSISTENCE OF RACIAL AND ETHNIC PROFILING IN THE UNITED STATES A FOLLOW-UP REPORT TO THE U.N. COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION BY THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION AND THE RIGHTS WORKING GROUP JUNE 30, 2009

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Chandra Bhatnagar, staff attorney with the ACLU Human Rights Program, is the principal author of this report. Jamil Dakwar, director of the Human Rights Program, reviewed and edited drafts of the report. Nicole Kief of the ACLU Racial Justice Program also provided significant material and valuable editing assistance. Mónica Ramírez of the ACLU Immigrants Rights Project provided substantial material and reviewed sections of the report. Reggie Shuford of the Racial Justice Program; Lenora Lapidus of the ACLU Women s Rights Project; and Michael Macleod-Ball, Jennifer Bellamy, and Joanne Lin of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office also reviewed drafts and contributed to the report, as did Ken Choe of the ACLU LGBT Project. Rachel Bloom and Nusrat Jahan Choudhary of the Racial Justice Program; Mike German and John Hardenbergh of the Washington Legislative Office; and Dan Mach of the ACLU Program on Religion and Belief all made contributions as well. Two law students, Elizabeth Joynes (Fordham Law School) and Peter Beauchamp (New York Law School), provided substantial editorial support and research assistance; Aron Cobbs from the Human Rights Program also contributed. Many ACLU affiliates made available extremely valuable material about and analyses of their state-based work, including Arizona, Arkansas, Northern California, Southern California, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Eastern Missouri, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia. The ACLU co-authored this report with the Rights Working Group (RWG). Margaret Huang, executive director of RWG, drafted sections of and edited the report. RWG staff Jumana Musa and Aadika Singh provided substantive material and input. Harpreet Singh of United Sikhs and staff of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services, the Asian Law Caucus, the Center for Immigrants Rights at the Penn State University s Dickinson School of Law, the Council on American Islamic Relations, Muslim Advocates, One America, and South Asian Americans Leading Together contributed materials to the report, as did other RWG member groups. RWG Steering Committee members, including the Asian American Justice Center, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights in Los Angeles, the National Immigration Law Center, and the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition, reviewed drafts and contributed to the report. Substantial contributions were also made by Andrea Ritchie on behalf of the U.S. Human Rights Network Law Enforcement Working Group (LEWG). The LEWG is made up of civil rights attorneys and grassroots, local, state and national organizations working to document and address issues of police misconduct and abuse in the United States, including racial profiling, race-based policing, and racially disparate uses of excessive force, lethal force, rape and sexual assault, searches, and verbal and sexual harassment by law enforcement against people of color. LEWG s 2008 submission to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on the occasion of its review of 2

the U.S. government's Second and Third Periodic Reports was endorsed by over 100 national, state, and local organizations. For more information on the shadow reporting process and on the LEWG submission, please go to www.ushrnetwork.org/cerd_shadow_2008. In their work related to this report, the ACLU and the Rights Working Group have coordinated and will continue to coordinate efforts with the broad coalition of U.S. social justice and human rights organizations led by the U.S. Human Rights Network. For further information concerning the U.S. Human Rights Network, please visit www.ushrnetwork.org. 3

ABOUT THE ACLU The American Civil Liberties Union ( ACLU ) is a nationwide, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to protecting human rights and civil liberties in the United States. The ACLU is the largest civil liberties organization in the country, with offices in 50 states and over 500,000 members. The ACLU was founded in 1920, largely in response to the curtailment of liberties that accompanied America s entry into World War I, including the persecution of political dissidents and the denial of due process rights for non-citizens. In the intervening decades, the ACLU has advocated to hold the U.S. government accountable to the rights protected under U.S. Constitution and other civil and human rights laws. Since the tragic events of 9/11, the core priority of the ACLU has been to stem the backlash against human rights in the name of national security. In 2004, the ACLU created a Human Rights Program specifically dedicated to holding the U.S. government accountable to universal human rights principles in addition to rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The ACLU Human Rights Program incorporates international human rights strategies into ACLU advocacy on issues relating to racial justice, national security, immigrants rights, and women s rights. The ACLU s Racial Justice Program aims to preserve and extend the constitutional rights of people of color. Committed to combating racism in all its forms, the Program s advocacy includes litigation, community organizing and training, legislative initiatives, and public education. The ACLU s Immigrants Rights Project was established in 1987 to expand and enforce the civil rights and civil liberties of non-citizens and to combat public and private discrimination against immigrants. Through a comprehensive program of impact litigation and public education, the Project files constitutional and class action lawsuits protecting the historic guarantee to judicial review, enforcing fair employment practices and maintaining constitutional safeguards against detention practices and biased asylum adjudication. The Washington Legislative Office of the ACLU is responsible for advancing the organization s civil liberties goals in the political branches of the federal government through a team of lobbyists, policy and communications specialists, and organizers who work collaboratively to bring the voices of our hundreds of thousands of supporters and activists and our national network of affiliates to Congress and the federal agencies. The full breadth of the ACLU s work can be seen at www.aclu.org. 4

ABOUT RIGHTS WORKING GROUP Formed in the aftermath of September 11 th, the Rights Working Group (RWG) is a national coalition of civil liberties, national security, immigrant rights and human rights organizations committed to restoring due process and human rights protections that have been eroded in the name of national security. RWG works to ensure that everyone in the United States is able to exercise their rights, regardless of citizenship or immigration status, race, national origin, religion or ethnicity. With more than 260 member organizations across the United States, RWG mobilizes a grassroots constituency in support of a policy advocacy agenda that demands accountability from the U.S. government for the equal protection of human rights. The RWG Steering Committee is composed of leading organizations representing the key constituencies of the coalition. Members include the ACLU as well as the American- Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee; American Immigration Lawyers Association; Arab American Institute; Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services; Asian American Justice Center; Bill of Rights Defense Committee; Breakthrough; Center for National Security Studies; Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles; Human Rights First; Human Rights Watch; Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; Leadership Conference on Civil Rights & Education Fund; National Council of La Raza; National Immigration Forum; National Immigration Law Center; New Jersey Immigration Policy Network; New York Immigration Coalition; One America; Open Society Policy Center; South Asian American Leaders of Tomorrow; Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition (TIRRC). The full breadth of the RWG s work can be seen at www.rightsworkinggroup.org. The ACLU and Rights Working Group welcome the opportunity to provide follow up information on the United States compliance with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination to the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination through this follow-up report. The report is based on the ACLU s and Rights Working Group member organizations advocacy in federal and state legislatures and courts. 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements...2 About the ACLU / About RWG...4 1. Introduction...8 2. Executive Summary...10 3. Analysis of the U.S. Government s Follow-Up Submission to CERD on Racial Profiling...13 4. Updates to Racial Profiling Concerns Addressed in 2008 CERD Review and New Cases of Racial Profiling to Bring to CERD s Attention...20 A) Federal Policy and National Issues...20 - Racial Profiling through 287(g) and Other ICE ACCESS Programs...20 - Racial Profiling Post-9/11...23 - NSEERS ( Special Registration )...23 - Operation Front Line...25 - FBI Investigations of Muslims...26 - Use of Informants and Agent Provocateurs...26 - Agency Recruitment of Muslims as Informants...27 - FBI Guidelines...28 - Profiling at Airports and Border Crossings...29 - Religious Head Coverings and Air Travel...30 - JetBlue...31 - AirTran 9...32 B) State Updates & New Cases of Racial Profiling...34 - Overview of State Legislative Action on Racial Profiling...34 - Arizona...35 - Arkansas...36 - California (Northern)...37 6

- California (Southern)...38 - Connecticut...40 - Georgia...40 - Illinois...41 - Louisiana...43 - Maryland...43 - Massachusetts...44 - Michigan...46 - Minnesota...46 - Mississippi...47 - Missouri...47 - New Jersey...48 - New Mexico...49 - New York...51 - North Carolina...51 - Rhode Island...52 - Tennessee...53 - Texas...54 - Washington State...55 - West Virginia...57 5. Recommendations to the United States...58 Annex A: American Civil Liberties Union Recommendations to the United States Government...62 Annex B: Rights Working Group Recommendations to the United States Government..69 Endnotes...71 7

1. INTRODUCTION The historic fight against discrimination and racial bias in the United States continues and has perhaps become more challenging in the 21 st century. Although fewer de jure forms of discrimination remain in existence, de facto racial disparities continue to plague the United States and curtail the enjoyment of fundamental human rights by millions of people who belong to racial and ethnic minorities. As highlighted by the United Nations expert on racism following his official visit to the U.S. last year, Racism and racial discrimination have profoundly and lastingly marked and structured American society. The United States has made decisive progress... [h]owever, the historical, cultural and human depth of racism still permeates all dimensions of life of American society. 1 Policies and practices that appear race-neutral but disproportionately restrict the rights and freedoms of people of color are difficult to challenge, and establishing their discriminatory nature in the public consciousness and among policymakers is an uphill battle. Racial profiling by law enforcement, and the correlate criminalization of people of color, provide one such example. Despite overwhelming evidence of its existence, often supported by official data, racial profiling continues to be a prevalent and egregious form of discrimination in the United States. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have acknowledged that racial profiling is unconstitutional, socially corrupting and counter-productive, yet this unjustifiable practice remains a stain on American democracy and an affront to the promise of racial equality. Since September 11, 2001, new forms of racial profiling have affected a growing number of people of color in the U.S., including members of Muslim, Arab, and South Asian communities. The Obama administration has inherited a shameful legacy of racial profiling codified in official FBI guidelines and a notorious registration program that treats Arabs and Muslims as suspects and denies them the presumption of innocence and equal protection under the law. As noted by Rep. John Conyers, Since September 11, our nation has engaged in a policy of institutionalized racial and ethnic profiling... If Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. were alive today... he would tell us we must not allow the horrific acts of terror our nation has endured to slowly and subversively destroy the foundation of our democracy. 2 Equally troubling has been the federal government s encouragement of unprecedented raids of immigrant (particularly Latino) communities and workplaces by local law enforcement in cooperation with federal agencies. These policies have unjustly expanded the purview of and undermine basic trust in local law enforcement, alienated immigrant communities, and created an atmosphere of fear. Senator Robert Menendez noted, The legitimate desire to get control over our borders has too often turned into a witch-hunt against Hispanic Americans and other people of color. 3 According to recent reports by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 4 and the Southern Poverty Law Center, inflammatory anti-immigrant rhetoric has led to a dramatic increase in hate crimes against and racial profiling of Latinos. 5 8

This report, based on the work of the ACLU and the Rights Working Group, analyzes the prevalence of racial profiling on the federal, state and local levels. It represents only the tip of the iceberg; a variety of additional examples of the widespread nature of racial profiling no doubt exist. This report is submitted solely to the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, but it is our hope that its findings and recommendations will be seriously considered by the Obama administration, by Congress, and by state and local governments in the effort to bolster the fight against racial profiling. As an Illinois State Senator, President Obama broadly championed legislation to end racial profiling, co-sponsoring the End Racial Profiling Act. He appointed an Attorney General to the Department of Justice who has stated that racial profiling is not good law enforcement and is committed to combating this practice. 6 We are hopeful that the Department of Justice investigation of Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio and those under his supervision will mark a new beginning and will be followed by similar investigations and robust policy changes as recommended in this report. Jamil Dakwar Director, ACLU Human Rights Program June 2009 9

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The international community has recognized that racial profiling is a violation of human rights, defining it as the practice of police and other law enforcement officers relying, to any degree, on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin as the basis for subjecting persons to investigatory activities or for determining whether an individual is engaged in criminal activity[.] 7 The U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination highlighted the importance of combating racial profiling in its General Comment XXXI on combating racism in the administration of the criminal justice system. 8 On February 27, 2001, just weeks after being sworn into office as America s 43 rd President, George W. Bush declared before a joint session of Congress that racial profiling is wrong, and we will end it in America. 9 President Bush s comments were reaffirmed by then-attorney General John Ashcroft, who stated that the Bush administration was committed to ending racial profiling because [u]sing race... as a proxy for potential criminal behavior is unconstitutional, and it undermines law enforcement by undermining the confidence that people can have in law enforcement. 10 Sadly, the Bush administration s rhetoric never resembled reality nor did it translate into concrete policy change to effect the stated goal. Even worse, several Bush administration policies actually exacerbated racial and ethnic profiling, especially in the wake of 9/11. As a result, in 2009, with a new administration in office, the practice of racial profiling by members of law enforcement at the federal, state, and local levels remains a widespread and pervasive problem throughout the United States, impacting the lives of millions of people in African American, Asian, Latino, South Asian, and Arab communities. 11 Indeed, data and anecdotal information from across the country reveal that racial minorities continue to be unfairly victimized when authorities investigate, stop, frisk, or search them based upon subjective identity-based characteristics rather than identifiable evidence of illegal activity. Victims continue to be racially or ethnically profiled while they work, drive, shop, pray, travel, and stand on the street. The disproportionate rates at which minorities are stopped and searched, in addition to the often high concentrations of law enforcement in minority communities, continue to have a tremendous impact on the over-representation of minorities (and especially members of African American, Latino, and Native American communities) in the American criminal justice system. Unfortunately, certain U.S. government policies continue to contribute significantly to the persistence of racial profiling. For example, over the last seven years, the federal government has aggressively transferred substantial responsibility for enforcement of civil immigration laws to state and local police and other state and local agencies, resulting in the increased profiling of people of color suspected of being immigrants and non-citizens. To support collaboration with local law enforcement, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), through its Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, established the ICE Agreements of Cooperation in Communities to Enhance Safety and Security (also known as ICE ACCESS programs). The ICE ACCESS 10

programs include Border Enforcement Security Task Forces; the Criminal Alien Program; the Fugitive Operations Teams; the Secure Communities program; and the Delegation of Immigration Authority, otherwise known as the 287(g) program. 12 While each of these programs has raised concerns about racial profiling, the 287(g) program is perhaps the most infamous. The program has been criticized for encouraging (or at the very least allowing for) illegal racial and ethnic profiling resulting in the harassment of both immigrants and U.S. citizens, particularly in Latino communities, further marginalizing already vulnerable populations. 13 Low-wage Latino immigrant workers are especially threatened, as are low-wage South Asian workers, who face an intersection of anti-immigrant hostility, employment abuse, and post-9/11-related discrimination. 14 In both its initial report to the Committee and in its January 2009 update, the U.S. government cites the Justice Department s 2003 Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies designed to ban federal law enforcement officials from engaging in racial profiling. 15 This reference, used by the U.S. government to support the contention that it is taking steps to eradicate profiling, is curious at best and misleading at worst. In reality, the guidance has proven to be both inadequate and ineffective, largely because it does not cover profiling based on religion, religious appearance, or national origin; does not apply to state or local law enforcement agencies; does not include any enforcement mechanisms; does not specify punishment for violating officers/agencies [not in compliance]; and contains a blanket exception for national security and border integrity cases. [Finally,] [t]he [g]uidance is an advisory, and hence is not legally binding. 16 Thus, instead of curbing racial profiling, the exceptions in the guidance have actually promoted profiling and created a stronger justification for state and local law enforcement agencies to racially profile individuals who are or who appear to be Arab, Muslim or South Asian. 17 It is no surprise that in the wake of the guidance, and absent the requirement of legal proof of suspected criminal activity, Arabs, Muslims and South Asians have been disproportionately victimized through various governmental initiatives including FBI surveillance and questioning, the NSEERS (special registration) program, border stops, airline profiling and the creation of no-fly lists, and religious surveillance. 18 In addition to the flawed guidance, a major impediment to the eradication of racial profiling remains the continued unwillingness or inability of the U.S. government to pass federal legislation prohibiting racial profiling with binding effect on federal, state, or local law enforcement. While it is clearly the province of Congress to create and enact legislation, the Bush administration chose to take no action to encourage the legislature to pass the End Racial Profiling Act (ERPA), which has continued to languish in Congress since its introduction in 1997. 19 ERPA is the key piece of federal legislation as it would compel all law enforcement agencies to ban racial profiling; create and apply profiling procedures; document data on stop/search/arrest activities by race and gender and create a private right of action for victims of profiling. 20 11

Because any legal remedy for racial discrimination by law enforcement currently requires specific proof of intent to discriminate, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for individual victims to challenge violations of their rights and broader law enforcement practices without comprehensive data that can measure the larger impact on minority communities. As such, ERPA is a critical means of promoting government monitoring and documentation of racial profiling, including the collection of comprehensive data on stops, searches, arrests, and law enforcement officers explanations for these encounters. Women of color who continue to face intersectional forms of discrimination and inequality are disproportionately burdened by encounters with law enforcement and overrepresented in the criminal justice system. 21 Although the CERD Committee requires State Parties to report in detail factors affecting and difficulties experienced in ensuring the equal enjoyment by women, free from racial discrimination, of rights under the Convention, 22 the U.S. government has continued to fail in regard to this reporting requirement. 23 It is thus equally important for the government to document both the race and gender of those individuals who have encounters with law enforcement as even within the context of racial profiling, women of color face overlapping forms of racial and gender-based discrimination. As a candidate, President Barack Obama s campaign released a Blueprint for Change, which stated that, if elected, Obama and Biden will ban racial profiling.... 24 Recently, Attorney General Eric Holder stated that ending racial profiling was a priority for the Obama administration and that profiling was simply not good law enforcement. 25 In 2005 and in 2007, then Senator Obama cosponsored ERPA. 26 The Obama administration now has the opportunity to bring the weight of the executive branch in support of the passage of ERPA as the passage of this legislation is a crucial component in a more comprehensive approach to addressing the intractable problem of racial and ethnic profiling and discrimination. The ACLU and the Rights Working Group call upon the Obama administration to make good on these promises and improve upon the disappointing record of the past eight years. The U.S. government must take urgent, direct, and forceful action to rid the nation of the scourge of racial and ethnic profiling and bring the U.S. into compliance with its human rights obligations under this Convention. 12

3. ANALYSIS OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT S FOLLOW-UP SUBMISSION TO CERD ON RACIAL PROFILING In 1994, the United States ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), which obligates all levels of government (federal, state, and local) to comply with the requirements of the treaty. 27 The ACLU and the Rights Working Group welcome the U.S. government s follow-up submission to the Committee submitted in January 2009, and appreciate the effort the U.S. made to comply with its treaty reporting obligations. Below is a brief analysis of the sections of the U.S. government s submission dealing with racial profiling. Inaction on the NSEERS Program and Federal Anti-Profiling Legislation In paragraph 14 of its Concluding Observations to the U.S., the Committee focused on two particular concerns: the failure to pass federal legislation to stop the practice of racial profiling, and the failure to end the National Security Entry and Exit Registration System (NSEERS) program, which targets individuals on the basis of national origin and religion. 28 The Committee expressed its concern as follows: The Committee notes with concern that despite the measures adopted at the federal and state levels to combat racial profiling including the elaboration by the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice of the Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies such practice continues to be widespread. In particular, the Committee is deeply concerned about the increase in racial profiling against Arabs, Muslims and South Asians in the wake of the 11 September 2001 attack, as well as about the development of the National Entry and Exit Registration System (NEERS) [sic] for nationals of 25 countries, all located in the Middle East, South Asia or North Africa (arts. 2 and 5 (b)). Bearing in mind its general recommendation No. 31 (2005) on the prevention of racial discrimination in the administration and functioning of the criminal justice system, the Committee recommends that the State party strengthen its efforts to combat racial profiling at the federal and state levels, inter alia, by moving expeditiously towards the adoption of the End Racial Profiling Act, or similar federal legislation. The Committee also draws the attention of the State party to its general recommendation No. 30 (2004) on discrimination against non-citizens, according to which measures taken in the fight against terrorism must not discriminate, in purpose or effect, on the grounds of race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin, and urges the State party, in accordance with article 2, paragraph 1 (c), of the Convention, to put an end to the National Entry and Exit Registration System (NEERS) [sic] and to eliminate other forms of racial profiling against Arabs, Muslims and South Asians. 29 The U.S. government s response acknowledged that no progress had been made on enacting federal legislation to ban racial profiling. 30 The submission did not explain, 13

however, that there was little public support from the executive branch for such legislation. 31 While Congress is responsible for passing laws, it is critical that the leaders of the executive branch call for and urge the passage of such important legislation. Sadly, such leadership has been lacking for several years. The U.S. response also acknowledges the widespread criticism of the NSEERS program and seeks to justify governmental inaction by noting that the judicial branch continues to be available for those whose rights have been violated by the program. However, the U.S. submission fails to examine the ongoing ramifications of the program for individuals and families affected by the registration process. 32 Nor is there explanation of why the program is necessary or should be continued. Insufficient Action Taken by Executive Branch Agencies The U.S. response focuses on the actions of the executive branch particularly the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to prevent and respond to incidences of racial profiling. Though the submission mentions four investigations launched by the Department of Justice since November of 2007, only one (Puerto Rico) involves racial profiling; the submission includes no information beyond the opening of the investigations. The submission also fails to include any details about or results of the numerous investigations opened by DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. In addition, although the submission recognizes the authority of federal agencies to investigate patterns or practices of violations of racial profiling, the U.S. government omits any recent examples of racial profiling investigations leading to settlements. 33 The two settlements cited by the U.S. (reached in 1999 with the State of New Jersey and in 2000 with the Los Angeles Police Department) are now several years old, and have failed to effectively combat racial profiling. 34 For example, since 2000, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) has been under a federal consent decree to reform the Department by, among other things, eradicating the practice of racial profiling. 35 (People of color in the Los Angeles area have, for decades, been subject to harassment and intimidation by, and violence at the hands of, the LAPD; the Rodney King beating remains a particularly troubling example.) 36 Although the LAPD has made some progress in changing the culture within the Department, the data (gathered under the consent decree) continues to show evidence of ongoing racial discrimination and profiling inconsistent with the consent decree s prohibition of such discrimination. 37 As a result, the ACLU of Southern California is advocating for a threeyear extension of the decree; 38 the LAPD, conversely, is advocating for its removal. 39 Given the persistence of profiling in Los Angeles and the highly contested nature of the status of the consent decree, it is troubling that the U.S. government cites the decree as evidence of its multi-faceted approach to combating racial profiling. 40 It is equally problematic that the U.S. government s treatment of the topic fails to discuss the fact that, though the consent decree includes a broad prohibition against discrimination and 14

requires data collection and reporting, it lacks a specific requirement that corrective action be taken to address race-based disparities revealed in that data. In the other case cited, the U.S. government s discussion of the federal consent decree in New Jersey raises similar questions and concerns. In fact, data in New Jersey reveal that, after ten years, African Americans now make up a higher percentage of stops along the southern portion of the New Jersey Turnpike than they did before the consent decree began. 41 Given the consent decree s monitoring structure (which the U.S. government does not mention), it is not surprising that racial profiling has not been eradicated in the state. Instead of analyzing traffic stop patterns, federal monitors looked at each stop individually to determine whether it was valid (and, since most people speed on the New Jersey Turnpike, there is a legitimate reason to stop virtually any driver). 42 As a result, the consent decree never truly addressed discriminatory police practices or racial profiling at all. As the consent decree comes to a close, the New Jersey legislature is considering a bill that would permanently establish an independent monitor in the state executive branch to replace the federal monitor. 43 In sum, despite clear evidence that racial profiling continues to be a problem for federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, the U.S. government has taken little action to investigate, prosecute or combat the practice. The U.S. follow-up submission reiterates the importance of the Justice Department s 2003 Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies, claiming that it is binding on all federal law enforcement officers. 44 However, it is important to cite the guidance itself, which clearly falls short of ICERD standards, especially with regard to the absolute lack of enforceability: This guidance is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch. It is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, trust, or responsibility, whether substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, entities, officers, employees, or agents, or any person, nor does it create any right of review in an administrative, judicial or any other proceeding. 45 In addition to failing to establish enforceable standards under which law enforcement agents can be held accountable, the guidance creates a significant loophole that allows for racial profiling for reasons of national security, a term that can be deployed to justify a wide variety of unjust practices: In investigating or preventing threats to national security or other catastrophic events (including the performance of duties related to air transportation security), or in enforcing laws protecting the integrity of the Nation s borders, Federal law enforcement officers may not consider race or ethnicity except to the extent permitted by the Constitution and laws of the United States. 46 15

Importantly, the guidance is only for federal law enforcement and is not applicable to state and local law enforcement agencies, where many racial profiling violations occur. The federal government has imposed numerous requirements on state and local law enforcement in exchange for federal funding in many areas, including post-9/11 law enforcement measures, yet no effort has been made to require compliance with the guidance as a condition of this funding. Failure to Address Forms and Effects of Gender-Specific Profiling The U.S. follow-up submission ignores the concerns of several Committee members, including Professor Sicilianos, expressed during the review session on the U.S. government's periodic report to the Committee, about the persistence of racial profiling and police brutality in general within the United States, as well as with respect to the gender-specific forms and effects of racial profiling and police misconduct experienced by women of color and transgender people of color. 47 In contravention of the Committee s General Recommendation XXV, the U.S. government has failed to keep racial profiling and police brutality statistics that are disaggregated by both race and gender, thus precluding a full assessment of the breadth and depth of the gender-specific impacts of the problem. 48 It has also precluded the use of the Department of Justice s pattern and practice jurisdiction to counter these trends at the federal, state, and local levels in any of the cases cited by the U.S. government in its follow up submission, or for that matter any other report. 49 Moreover, an exclusive focus on traffic stops fails to reveal racial disparities in stops, searches and arrests of women of color pedestrians, particularly in the context of profiling women of color as street-level drug mules. 50 While this practice at the nation s airports is well documented by a 2000 General Accounting Office study, it also extends into streets and homes across the country. 51 Additionally, racial profiling of women of color as drug users has permeated delivery rooms across the nation, where pregnant women fitting the profile of drug users young, poor, and Black are drug-tested and sometimes subject to criminal charges. 52 Current state and federal data collection systems also fail to capture racial profiling which takes place in gender specific contexts. For example, police responses to domestic violence disproportionately lead to the arrest of African American and Latina women who are victims of domestic violence; to the policing of child abuse and neglect; and to the policing of pregnant women suspected of using controlled substances, which has almost exclusively targeted women of color. 53 Women of color, and African American, Latina, and Asian transgender women in particular, are also routinely profiled by police and subjected to stops, strip searches, and arbitrary arrest and detention as alleged sex workers, regardless of whether they are engaged in sex work at the time or involved in the trade at all. 54 Current data collection requirements also fail to capture the particularly harmful consequences of racial profiling for women of color. Reports by women of color of 16

sexual harassment, assault and rape by police officers who target them for traffic, drug or prostitution-related offenses are all too common. 55 Data on searches following police stops does not differentiate with respect to the type of search performed, thereby failing to capture patterns of overly-invasive and often abusive searches of women of color and transgender women of color flowing from racial profiling practices, particularly in the context of the war on drugs and the policing of sex work. 56 Inadequate Action by the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division The Criminal Section of the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division is insufficiently resourced and therefore unable, as a practical matter, to prosecute the number of cases of racial profiling, racially discriminatory use of excessive force, abuse, harassment, and false arrests which take place each year. Moreover, 18 U.S.C. 242, the primary statutory vehicle for bringing criminal charges against law enforcement officers, requires proof that a law enforcement agent specifically intended to violate an individual s constitutional rights, rather than merely intend to commit the act(s) which results in rights violations. 57 Even the specific intent to injure, or the reckless use of excessive force, without more, does not satisfy the requirements of 242.... There must exist an intention to punish or to prevent the exercise of constitutionally guaranteed rights, such as the right to vote, or to obtain equal protection of the law. 58 Moreover, an officer's belief that his or her conduct is reasonable under the circumstances is a sufficient defense to a charge under 242. 59 The standard of proof of intentional racial discrimination under the statute is particularly high, in contravention of the Convention s definition of racial discrimination, which includes acts which have racially discriminatory effects. 60 As a result, few prosecutions for racially discriminatory law enforcement conduct are successfully brought under this statutory provision. 61 Indeed, prosecutions for racially discriminatory police misconduct are the exception rather than the rule. The U.S. government cites to over 400 convictions obtained for criminal misconduct by public officials over almost a decade in a country with thousands of law enforcement agencies. 62 This represents a mere drop in the bucket, in light of U.S. DOJ statistics indicating 26,556 complaints alleging excessive force lodged against 59% of officers/agencies nationwide in 2002 alone. 63 Additionally, the U.S. government fails to quantify how many of the 400 criminal misconduct convictions of public officials were for acts of racially discriminatory police brutality. Public officials can encompass a broad range of government employees other than law enforcement officers and criminal misconduct can include theft, bribery or both, offenses that tend to give rise to a greater number of prosecutions than racially discriminatory use of excessive force or civil rights violations. 64 The U.S. government asserts that the Department of Justice produces national statistics on contacts between police and the public. 65 It should be noted that the surveys referenced are randomly administered across the country, generating an average response that conceals the differences in law enforcement conduct between communities. 66 As a result, survey findings do not fully capture the wildly disparate realities of frequency, nature and outcomes of police contacts in communities of color disproportionately targeted by law enforcement agencies in the context of the war on drugs, quality of 17

life enforcement, anti-gang initiatives, and the war on terror. Moreover, the surveys are based on a relatively small sample of the U.S. population: 51,000 people, or 0.0166% of the current population. 67 Failure to Effectively Train Law Enforcement Although the U.S. government s follow-up submission devotes considerable attention to training of law enforcement agencies, and to initiatives undertaken to address discrimination by law enforcement against Muslims, Arabs, and South Asians post-9/11 in particular, nothing is said about the complete lack of national standards for training of law enforcement officers. The measures cited in the U.S. follow-up submission are neither comprehensive nor mandatory, 68 and, as a result, there is considerable variation in the type and depth of training received by local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. Training is particularly lacking with respect to law enforcement interactions with women of color in general and transgender women of color in particular. 69 Moreover, the prevalence of police abuse and misconduct appear to suggest that what training measures are in place are not effective. Inaction on Problematic Federal Bureau of Investigation Guidelines The U.S. follow-up submission acknowledges the serious concerns of many Members of Congress and advocacy groups about new guidelines (adopted in October 2008) regulating the domestic operations of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). 70 The follow-up submission states: Although the guidelines maintain the status quo with respect to the use of race or ethnicity in investigations, they have been criticized by advocacy groups and members of Congress for not going far enough to eliminate racial profiling, particularly in national security investigations. 71 The Bush administration took no steps to address the concerns raised, and the guidelines are now operational. Recently, in response to concerns about the guidelines raised by Senator Russ Feingold during Attorney General Eric Holder s Senate confirmation hearings, Attorney General Holder committed to taking a close look at the guidelines early in his tenure to consider whether changes need to be made. 72 Thus far, the Obama administration has taken no further action. 73 It is imperative that new policies regarding the FBI guidelines and other law enforcement agency regulations be consistent with U.S. treaty obligations under ICERD and all other human rights commitments. See section 4 for additional information and concerns about the new FBI guidelines. U.N. Special Rapporteur on Racism Concerned about Racial Profiling in the U.S. Finally, it is significant to note that in May and June 2008, after the CERD review, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance visited the United States to conduct a formal country visit. In his report, recently presented the U.N. Human Rights Council, the Special Rapporteur focused on racial profiling as one of his priority concerns, and made the following relevant recommendations: As a matter of urgency, the [U.S.] Government should clarify to law enforcement officials the obligation of equal treatment and, in particular, the prohibition of racial profiling. This process would benefit from the 18

adoption by Congress of the End Racial Profiling Act. State Governments should also adopt comprehensive legislation prohibiting racial profiling. To monitor trends regarding racial profiling and treatment of minorities by law enforcement, federal, state and local governments should collect and publicize data about police stops and searches as well as instances of police abuse. Independent oversight bodies should be established within police agencies, with real authority to investigate complaints of human rights violations in general and racism in particular. Adequate resources should also be provided to train police and other law enforcement officials. 74 The U.S. government should act swiftly to implement the Special Rapporteur s recommendations. 19

4. UPDATES TO RACIAL PROFILING CONCERNS ADDRESSED IN 2008 CERD REVIEW AND NEW CASES OF RACIAL PROFILING TO BRING TO CERD S ATTENTION A. FEDERAL POLICY AND NATIONAL ISSUES In August 2004, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD Committee issued new guidelines clarifying the obligations of States Parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) regarding the human rights of non-citizens. 75 The Committee, which oversees compliance with ICERD and monitors discriminatory laws and practices in member states, issued General Recommendation XXX, addressing discrimination against noncitizens and establishing standards on the fundamental rights of non-citizens, underscoring the principle that non-citizens enjoy absolute and equivalent rights to protections from racial discrimination under international law. 76 Importantly, General Recommendation XXX addresses all groups of non-citizens, including lawful permanent residents, asylum seekers, refugees, and undocumented persons. 77 Additionally, the General Recommendation advises States parties to the ICERD to: Ensure that any measures taken in the fight against terrorism do not discriminate, in purpose or effect, on the grounds of race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin and that non-citizens are not subjected to racial or ethnic profiling or stereotyping. 78 In 2005, the CERD Committee adopted General Comment XXXI on the prevention of racial discrimination in the administration and functioning of the criminal justice system. In paragraph 20 of that document, the CERD Committee recognizes racial profiling by law enforcement as a violation of the treaty s obligations. 79 Despite the clear guidance of international human rights law, the United States government has failed to meet its obligations under the ICERD, and racial profiling by law enforcement continues to be a significant problem at the federal, state and local levels. Racial Profiling through 287(g) and Other ICE ACCESS Programs Over the last seven years, the federal government has actively shifted significant responsibility for enforcement of civil immigration laws to state and local police and other state and local agencies. To support the collaboration with local law enforcement, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), through its Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, established the ICE Agreements of Cooperation in Communities to Enhance Safety and Security (also known as ICE ACCESS programs). The ICE ACCESS programs include Border Enforcement Security Task Forces; the Criminal Alien Program; the Fugitive Operations Teams; the Secure Communities 20

program; and the Delegation of Immigration Authority 287(g) program. 80 these programs has raised concerns about racial profiling. Each of Perhaps the most well-known program of ICE-local police collaboration is the Delegation of Immigration Authority, or 287(g) program. Under this program, ICE enters into memoranda of understanding or agreement (MOU or MOA) with states and localities under Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1357(g). 81 In relevant part, this provision empowers DHS to enter into written agreements with a state or any political subdivision of a state authorizing local law enforcement officers to perform immigration-related functions under certain circumstances and provided there is oversight, supervision and training of local officers by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). 82 As of May 2009 a total of sixty-six 287(g) MOAs have been signed in twenty-three states, 83 and approximately eighty applications to join the program are pending approval. 84 ICE s budget for the program has increased tenfold in the last two years, from $5.4 million in 2007 to $54.1 million in 2009. 85 Enforcement of federal immigration law by local law enforcement is inherently problematic and tied to practices of racial profiling, as noted recently in ACLU testimony before Congress: Because a person is not visibly identifiable as being undocumented, the basic problem with local police enforcing immigration law is that police officers who are often not adequately trained, and in some cases not trained at all, in federal immigration enforcement will improperly rely on race or ethnicity as a proxy for undocumented status. In 287(g) jurisdictions, for example, state or local police with minimal training in immigration law are put on the street with a mandate to arrest illegal aliens. The predictable and inevitable result is that any person who looks or sounds foreign is more likely to be stopped by police, and more likely to be arrested (rather than warned or cited or simply let go) when stopped..... The problem of racial profiling, however, is not limited to 287(g) field models... the federal government uses an array of other agreements to encourage local police to enforce immigration law. Racial profiling concerns therefore are equally present under jail-model MOUs or other jail-screening programs. Officers, for example, may selectively screen in the jails only those arrestees who appear to be Latino or have Spanish surnames. Police officers may also be motivated to target Latinos for selective or pretextual arrests in order to run them through the booking process and attempt to identify undocumented immigrants among them. 86 As such, immigration enforcement by local police raises grave concerns about racial profiling of Latinos and other racial minorities, and of both U.S. citizens and non-citizen immigrants. Although the overwhelming majority of Latinos in the United States are 21